Ecology Letters, (2013) 16: 522–534
doi: 10.1111/ele.12063
REVIEW AND
SYNTHESIS
Andrew D. Barton,1,2*
Andrew J. Pershing,3 Elena
Litchman,4,5 Nicholas R. Record,3,6
Kyle F. Edwards,4 Zoe V. Finkel,1
Thomas Kiørboe,5 and Ben A.
Ward7
The biogeography of marine plankton traits
Abstract
Changes in marine plankton communities driven by environmental variability impact the marine food web
and global biogeochemical cycles of carbon and other elements. To predict and assess these community
shifts and their consequences, ecologists are increasingly investigating how the functional traits of plankton
determine their relative fitness along environmental and biological gradients. Laboratory, field and modelling studies are adopting this trait-based approach to map the biogeography of plankton traits that underlies
variations in plankton communities. Here, we review progress towards understanding the regulatory roles
of several key plankton functional traits, including cell size, N2-fixation and mixotrophy among phytoplankton, and body size, ontogeny and feeding behaviour for zooplankton. The trait biogeographical approach
sheds light on what structures plankton communities in the current ocean, as well as under climate change
scenarios, and also allows for finer resolution of community function because community trait composition
determines the rates of significant processes, including carbon export. Although understanding of trait biogeography is growing, uncertainties remain that stem, in part, from the paucity of observations describing
plankton functional traits. Thus, in addition to recommending widespread adoption of the trait-based
approach, we advocate for enhanced collection, standardisation and dissemination of plankton functional
trait data.
Keywords
Biogeochemistry, biogeography, diazotroph, microbe, mixotrophy, ocean, phytoplankton, predator–prey,
trait, zooplankton.
Ecology Letters (2013) 16: 522–534
INTRODUCTION
Marine plankton communities play active roles in, and are also subject to, global biogeochemical cycles and climate variability. Key
community functions – including the export of carbon (C) from the
ocean surface, the transfer of energy and organic matter to higher
trophic levels and the drawdown of nutrients essential for primary
production – determine the exchange of C and other elements
between the surface ocean and the atmosphere and ocean depths
(Falkowski et al. 1998). Environmental conditions, in turn, feedback
on the relative abundance and diversity of species in marine plankton communities (Finkel et al. 2007; Barton et al. 2010; Edwards
et al. 2013). An essential component to understanding this complex,
two-way interaction is the ability to assess and predict how marine
plankton communities respond to environmental change.
Climate change over the next century is projected to alter the
environmental conditions experienced by plankton, including temperature, pH, light, water column stratification and turbulence, the
supply of nutrients to the ocean surface, and the concentration and
speciation of dissolved inorganic C (see Box 1 for overview of
projected climate impacts). Model projections of how plankton
communities will respond to environmental conditions over the
next century vary substantially, but the general trajectory is towards
greater stratification of the water column, weaker nutrient delivery
to the surface and acidification (Sarmiento et al. 2004; Caldeira &
Wickett 2005). Even within the relatively recent observational
record, there is some evidence that the oligotrophic zones of the
ocean (i.e. those with low nutrients and chlorophyll) may be
expanding (Irwin & Oliver 2009), yet we do not fully understand
why these changes have occurred or how community structure has
varied. This uncertainty arises because we have limited knowledge
of the ecological niches for the vast number of plankton that make
up plankton communities.
Here, we demonstrate, using compelling examples for both phytoplankton and zooplankton, a tractable way forward that focusses
on how functional traits determine how and why plankton communities change across space and time. We review laboratory studies that identify relationships between traits and species or
functional groups (that is, groups of species with similar traits), as
well as observational and modelling studies that identify the temporal and spatial distribution of functional traits and their environ-
1
5
From individual plankton to global processes
Environmental Sciences Program, Mt. Allison University, Sackville, NB, E4L
1A7, Canada
2
Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke
Centre for Ocean Life, National Institute for Aquatic Resources, Technical
University of Denmark, Charlottenlund, DK-2930, Denmark
6
Earth and Oceanographic Science, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME, 04011,
University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA
USA
3
7
University of Maine and Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME,
rieure, 24 Rue Lhomond, Paris, 75005,
CERES-ERTI, Ecole
Normale Supe
04101, USA
France
4
*Correspondence: E-mail: andrew.barton@duke.edu
W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners,
MI, 49060, USA
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
Review and Synthesis
Plankton trait biogeography 523
Box 1 Key impacts of climate change on marine plankton habitats
The marine environment is expected to change markedly over the next century in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
There is significant regional and intermodel variability in projections of climate change (e.g. Rykaczewski & Dunne 2010), and untangling
the ecological and biogeochemical ramifications of these changes is an ongoing challenge (for review of climate impacts on marine ecosystems, see Doney et al. 2012). We summarise here several pattern changes that are likely to impact marine plankton communities, and revisit
these pattern shifts in our discussion of how plankton traits may redistribute in response to changing climate.
Circulation. Ocean circulation, and consequently the horizontal and vertical transport of heat, salt, nutrients and plankton themselves, will
adjust to changing surface wind and buoyancy forcing, and with it redefine the physical boundaries of large marine biomes (Sarmiento et al.
2004; Rykaczewski & Dunne 2010). Latitudinal shifts in wind stress curl patterns, for example, would imprint on the extent and strength of
the wind-driven subpolar and subtropical gyre circulations.
Stratification. In an average sense, it is anticipated that ocean temperatures will increase, particularly at the surface, and that this will lead to
decreases in sea ice cover and increases in the thermal stratification of the water column (Sarmiento et al. 2004; Bopp et al. 2005). Imprinted on
this pattern are changes in salinity. Increased precipitation and ice melting at high latitudes will further enhance stratification, while increased
evaporation at lower latitudes will decrease stratification (Curry et al. 2003). However, the general pattern is towards greater stratification. The
warmer temperatures and increased stratification (which leads to enhanced light exposure) may lead to a longer phytoplankton growing season
at higher latitudes.
Nutrient Availability. The general increase in stratification limits the vertical supply from deep waters of essential nutrients, but also
increases the average light exposure of cells in the ocean surface layers. This, in effect, may lead to a poleward expansion of oligotrophic,
subtropical regions of the ocean (Sarmiento et al. 2004; Bopp et al. 2005).
Acidification. Seawater will become increasingly acidic as anthropogenic carbon dioxide is taken up at the surface and subsequently redistributed by ocean circulation (Caldeira & Wickett 2005; Doney et al. 2012). Barring rapid adaptive evolution (Lohbeck et al. 2012), the
growth and distribution of marine calcifiers, such as coccolithophores, and other taxonomic groups may be impacted.
mental covariates. In essence, we seek to identify and understand
the underlying ecophysiology of the biogeography of plankton
traits, rather than of plankton species. We define biogeography
generally to include temporal and spatial plankton distributions.
Where and when, for example, is it advantageous for a phytoplankter to be a mixotroph, a diazotroph, or a large cell? Where
and when is ambush feeding or large body size favoured among
zooplankton? Conversely, where and when are these traits not
advantageous?
Trait-based plankton ecology
A plankter’s functional traits are characteristics that mediate growth,
reproduction and survival (Violle et al. 2007), and determine its fitness for given biotic and abiotic conditions (Westoby & Wright
2006; Litchman & Klausmeier 2008). The fitness of a particular species, therefore, varies along environmental and biological gradients,
producing its characteristic temporal and spatial distribution, or biogeography, and distinct trait combinations are favoured in particular
regions and periods. In some cases, traits can be linked to specific
genes; for example, phytoplankton N2-fixation requires the nifH
gene (N2-fixation is the biologically mediated conversion of dinitrogen gas into ammonia). In other cases, traits are controlled by many
genes and may evolve independently in multiple groups. This makes
it possible to treat the presence of traits independently from species
or phylogeny. Traits can emerge from the interaction of multiple,
finer-level traits and the environment an organism encounters.
Meta-traits (for example, organism size) can determine physiological
traits and trade-offs across traits as well as important ecological
properties (for example, predator and prey identity for zooplankton), yet they arise from the more atomic traits that govern life
history.
Recent progress in plankton trait biogeography
Although terrestrial plant ecologists have long considered how traits
vary along environmental gradients (Westoby & Wright 2006; Moles
et al. 2011), in marine plankton ecology this perspective is rapidly
developing. Key phytoplankton traits and trait trade-offs are now
being revealed, often by analysing compilations of laboratory and
field data from many species (Edwards et al. 2012; Irwin et al.
2012). As many of these traits are constrained by cell or body size
(e.g. Fig. 1), it is possible to make inferences about the distribution
of traits based on variations in the size spectra, or the relative abundance of different size classes of plankton (Cerme~
no et al. 2006). At
the same time, molecular methods can now identify phytoplankton
traits in the field in a manner not previously possible. For example,
recent studies have identified the spatial distribution in the expression of the nifH gene, which encodes for the iron (Fe) protein of
nitrogenase required for N2-fixation (Zehr 2011).
Similarly, recent developments have spurred appreciation for the
trait-mediated roles of zooplankton in marine food webs. For example, the maximum ingestion rate of prey by zooplankton decreases
with body size, at least within taxonomic groups (Hansen et al.
1997), while optimum prey size generally increases with body size,
although there is substantial variation between groups (Hansen et al.
1994). Zooplankton traits describing their feeding behaviours –
whether they are ambush, filter or cruise feeding, and for how
much of the time – are increasingly being implicated in structuring
marine ecosystems (Kiørboe 2011; Mariani et al. 2013).
Plankton community models also play an integral role in understanding the distributions of plankton traits. Traditionally, these
models have represented the biomass of one or a few primary producers and zooplankton with fixed traits, or perhaps even a larger
range of key functional groups (LeQuere et al. 2005). Models are
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
524 A. D. Barton et al.
Review and Synthesis
(a)
3
Scaled nitrate affinity
(L µmol N–1 day–1)
10
102
101
100
10–1
100
102
104
106
Cell volume (µm3)
Max. growth rate (day –1)
(b)
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
100
102
104
106
Cell volume (µm3)
Figure 1 Scaled nitrate (N) affinity (a) and maximum specific growth rates (b)
for marine phytoplankton spanning > 4 orders of magnitude in volume (data
from Edwards et al. 2012). Scaled nitrate affinity is the nitrate uptake affinity
normalised by the minimum cellular nitrogen quota. The dashed black line
shows the line of best fit. In general, smaller phytoplankton cells have greater
scaled nutrient affinity and maximum specific growth rates.
plankton in today’s ocean. Second, because trait variation within
and across communities leads to variation in the rates of processes
such as C fixation and export, mapping out the biogeography of
functional traits will allow us to better understand ecosystem functioning and biogeochemical processes. Third, plankton trait biogeography helps to inform the creation of mechanistic, trait-based
community models, but also provides a useful constraint for model
hypotheses and projections. Lastly, this approach enables mechanistic projections for how plankton communities may respond to
future environmental change, and how these ecological changes may
translate into variability in community function.
We focus on significant advances that have been made towards
understanding the spatial and temporal variation in several key phytoplankton and zooplankton functional traits. The traits considered
are important in the regulation of biogeochemical cycles, and will
likely play a role in determining how ecosystems respond to global
change. For both phytoplankton and zooplankton, we discuss the
biogeography of cell or body size. For phytoplankton, we also consider mixotrophy (that is, combining autotrophic and heterotrophic
nutrition) and N2-fixation. For zooplankton, we also consider
ontogeny and feeding behaviours. We have selected these traits to
demonstrate the feasibility and power of the trait biogeography
approach, but acknowledge that many other traits and processes are
critically important. Implicit in our discussion of how trait biogeographies may shift in response to climate change is the notion that
the timescales of plankton dispersal and community change are
rapid relative to the rates of climate change (Provan et al. 2009). In
other words, plankton ecological changes generally track environmental variability. We acknowledge that plankton dispersal limitation
can, in certain cases, become important.
PHYTOPLANKTON
growing in complexity by simulating the defining traits of additional
species, size classes, or taxonomic groups (Ward et al. 2012), physiologies (Ward et al. 2011), behaviours (Mariani et al. 2013) and interactions. These trait-based models capture the complexity of
communities in a simple way by describing individuals in terms of a
few key traits, and may also provide spatial context by embedding
ecological interactions in ocean circulation models (Figs 2 and 3).
One such approach by Follows et al. (2007) populated the ocean
with many phytoplankton types within two size classes, with traits
chosen stochastically from size-dependent ranges, and allowed competition for limited resources, predation and the environment to
select for ‘fit’ phytoplankton at each location and time. Using the
same model, Dutkiewicz et al. (2009) partitioned the ocean into
regions dominated by ‘gleaners’ (small cells with high specific affinity for nutrients) and ‘opportunists’ (cells that grow fast with high
nutrient concentration). The increased focus on modelling traits,
rather than species or groups of species, helps reveal, on a resolution previously not possible, the mechanisms that regulate community ecology.
Overview
The trait biogeographical approach has several important benefits
(Box 2). First, it allows for enhanced understanding of the underlying mechanisms regulating the community ecology of marine
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
Cell size and size-linked traits
The size of phytoplankton cells constrains many of their physiological rates (e.g. nutrient uptake and growth rates), biotic interactions
(e.g. grazing) and behaviour within the fluid environment (e.g. sinking speed). Therefore, cell size plays a key role in determining the
diversity and relative abundance of competing phytoplankton species, as well as the transfer of elements between the surface and
deeper layers in the ocean and from phytoplankton to higher trophic levels (Smetacek 1985; Cushing 1989). Our approach to discussing phytoplankton community size structure is complementary
to previous work (Finkel 2007; Finkel et al. 2010), but is biogeography-centric; we first ask how size structure varies in space, and then
consider how size-linked functional traits help bring about the spatial variations in size structure.
Phytoplankton abundance (A; cells m 3) typically decreases with
increasing cell volume (V; lm3), such that A = cVξ, where c is a
constant and the scaling exponent ξ is approximately 1 but varies
from roughly 2/3 to 5/3 (Cerme~
no et al. 2006; Finkel 2007; and
references therein). Although small cells are generally more abundant than larger ones, the scaling exponent varies across environmental conditions. Compilations of in situ observations (e.g. Irigoien
et al. 2004) and global satellite measurements (Uitz et al. 2006) indicate that smaller phytoplankton cells are generally present in a range
of nutrient concentrations, whereas larger cells become more common under higher nutrient supply common in regions of upwelling
Review and Synthesis
Plankton trait biogeography 525
Box 2 Why plankton trait biogeography?
Regulation of community structure
Mapping the biogeography of functional traits will help reveal the mechanisms underlying variations in marine plankton communities
because the dominant structuring factors should alter trait distributions in predictable ways. For example, temporal variation in light and
nitrate leads to corresponding changes in the relative advantage of traits related to nitrate competition, low light tolerance and maximum
growth rate (Edwards et al. 2013). This kind of analysis can be applied to broader spatial scales by integrating data on community abundance, functional traits and environmental variables. For example, summer nutrient depletion in the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean has
been found to favour smaller over larger diatoms (Barton et al. 2013).
Variation in community function
Key community processes like carbon export, N2-fixation and productivity of higher trophic levels vary in space and time, and understanding the causes of this variation is a significant challenge. Plankton functional traits have a dual role in this context: they determine the success of species as a function of environmental conditions, and then the traits of dominant species determine the rate and magnitude of
ecosystem processes, thereby feeding back to modulate environmental conditions. Mapping the biogeography of functional traits will thus
allow trait distributions to be linked to variation in ecosystem functions.
Validating and refining plankton community models
Plankton community models are increasingly representing the traits of additional species, organism sizes or functional groups to simulate
community structure and function (Follows et al. 2007; Mariani et al. 2013; Ward et al. 2012). These models benefit from plankton trait biogeography in two primary ways. First, increased understanding of how traits vary and co-vary across species will aid in developing realistic
but tractable model representations of functional diversity. Second, model predictions must be evaluated against empirical patterns of distribution for traits, species or functional groups.
Projecting future ecosystem processes under global change
All of the above challenges will need to be met to successfully predict how the ocean ecosystems may respond to global environmental
change. Current controls on large-scale variation in community structure and function must be better understood to anticipate how ecological patterns will change under new environmental regimes. Models will need to capture the ecology of diverse plankton communities and
assess how community structure varies across the globe to make accurate predictions of the consequences of different degrees of anthropogenic change.
or enhanced mixing. Using a global ocean model with a size-structured phytoplankton community, Ward et al. (2012) demonstrated
that phytoplankton size spectra vary regionally, with large cells relatively rare in oligotrophic seas and relatively more common in areas
of strong upwelling or in subpolar gyres (Fig. 2, points ‘A’ and ‘B’
respectively).
The co-regulation of phytoplankton populations by bottom-up
(nutrient limitation) and top-down (predation) processes provides a
compelling explanation for the maintenance of phytoplankton community size spectrum at a given location, and also for its globalscale variations (Armstrong 1994; Ward et al. 2012). Cell size influences a cell’s uptake rate of dissolved nutrients by modifying the
surface area available for uptake transporters and the diffusive flux
of nutrients towards the cell (Aksnes & Egge 1991). Within taxonomic groups, smaller cells typically have higher scaled nutrient
affinities (defined as the clearance rate at low nutrient concentrations, normalised by cell nutrient content) than do larger cells
(Fig. 1), and therefore may maintain positive growth at lower nutrient concentrations than larger competitors (Edwards et al. 2012). In
the subtropical gyres, which are characterised by consistent stratification and weak nutrient delivery to the surface, smaller phytoplankton cells are able to draw down ambient nutrient
concentrations to critically low levels at which larger cells cannot
survive, and the size spectra slope is steeply negative (Fig. 2, Point
‘A’).
In the subpolar gyres, coastal upwelling zones, and regions of
enhanced turbulent mixing, nutrient delivery is greater (Fig. 2, Point
‘B’). The population of small phytoplankton cells increases in
response to the additional nutrients, but is subject to intense grazing
pressure by their predators, who themselves are relatively small and
quick to respond to changes in prey density (Hansen et al. 1994,
1997). This top-down control keeps the smaller phytoplankton cells
from consuming all available nutrients, and allows successively larger, less competitive size classes of phytoplankton to grow, each in
turn grazed down by their successively larger, more slowly growing
predators (Armstrong 1994; Ward et al. 2012). This mechanism is
thought to underpin the positive correlation between total primary
productivity or nutrients and average phytoplankton cell size, as well
as the broadening of the cell size distribution with additional nutrients (Irigoien et al. 2004; Schartau et al. 2010). Certain taxonomic
groups, such as the diatoms, have evolved to have higher growth
and nutrient uptake rates than others (Edwards et al. 2012), and
may thus modify the conceptual picture we have developed here.
Imprinted onto this mechanism may be other size-dependent factors that impact phytoplankton fitness, including light (see review
by Finkel et al. 2010 for others). All else being equal, larger cells
absorb fewer photons per pigment than smaller cells of the same
shape, due to increased self-shading of pigment with increasing cell
volume (Duysens 1956). As a result, larger phytoplankton cells tend
to have lower intracellular pigment concentrations than smaller cells
under any given irradiance regime, which should cause smaller cells
to have a growth advantage under low light conditions that often
occur in deep mixed layers in temperate and high latitude waters
(Finkel et al. 2004). Alternatively, the high levels of self-shading
caused by larger cell volume can be advantageous in stratified water
columns when photon flux densities and ultra-violet light doses are
high (Key et al. 2010). One goal for future work should be to quantify the relationship between light conditions and size spectra across
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
526 A. D. Barton et al.
Review and Synthesis
B
A
−1.2
−1.0
−0.8
−0.6
Figure 2 Size-spectral slope in a global size-structured plankton community model (data from Ward et al. 2012). ‘A’ indicates a subtropical location with relatively few
large cells present (more negative slope), whereas ‘B’ indicates a subpolar location with a greater representation of large cells in the community (less negative slope).
the ocean, which will require disentangling the effects of light conditions from the effects of nutrient supply.
Various other size-dependent mechanisms may be important
under certain conditions, including phytoplankton sinking and
swimming speeds, the impact of turbulence on nutrient uptake, and
the effect of fluctuating nutrient supplies (Kiørboe 2008). Recent
studies have also argued that increasing temperature may reduce
phytoplankton cell volume (e.g. Hilligsøe et al. 2011), although the
mechanistic link remains unclear (Atkinson et al. 2003). We also
note that many phytoplankton form aggregates of cells, such as diatom chains, that modify their effective sizes and thus their interaction with the physical environment and predators. The costs and
benefits of aggregation are an area of active research (Pahlow et al.
1997). Lastly, the range of photosynthetic pigments deployed by
phytoplankton determines, in part, their distribution and community
structure (Stomp et al. 2004), and represents an important regulatory
set of traits.
Observations suggest that as oligotrophic conditions expand, so
too do ecosystems dominated by smaller phytoplankton (Irwin &
Oliver 2009), and coupled climate and ecosystem models indicate
that warmer, more stratified future oceans may favour smaller
phytoplankton (Bopp et al. 2005). Similar shifts in phytoplankton
size structure due to changing nutrient availability appear in the geological record (Finkel et al. 2007). The greater extent of oligotrophic
seas may weaken the ocean’s biological carbon pump, or its biologically mediated export of carbon from the surface layer to deeper
waters (Falkowski et al. 1998). It should be stressed, however, that
the complex and sometimes competing effects of temperature,
nutrient availability, turbulence, ocean acidification, grazing and light
on phytoplankton fitness remain to be fully quantified.
Nitrogen fixation
Diazotrophs are organisms that convert nitrogen gas from the
atmosphere (N2) into bioavailable ammonia, providing a globally
significant source of N to the ocean. Because of this ability to fix
nitrogen and their distinct cellular elemental ratios (Quigg et al.
2011), or elemental stoichiometry, the distribution of N2-fixers
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
influences oceanic N : P ratios (Weber & Deutsch 2012). Diazotrophs impact the structure and function of marine ecosystems in
the current ocean, as well as on much longer timescales (Tyrrell
1999).
Diazotrophs include both photoautotrophic cyanobacteria (members of the phytoplankton) and heterotrophic bacteria. Among the
cyanobacteria, both colonial (Trichodesmium) and unicellular species
(Crocosphaera) contribute to N2-fixation (Capone et al. 1997). Some
heterocystous filamentous cyanobacteria also occur as symbionts of
other organisms, such as diatoms, and the widely distributed but
poorly understood UCYN-A group appears to be photoheterotrophic and may occur as a symbiont (Zehr 2011). N2-fixation is
also carried out by some heterotrophic c-proteobacteria (Halm et al.
2012), but much less is known about their ecology and distribution.
Although these diverse N2-fixers exhibit a range of functional
traits, they all use the nitrogenase enzyme complex to catalyse the
conversion of N2 gas into ammonia. Therefore, we consider the
ability to fix N as an ecologically and biogeochemically important
functional trait, and discuss the underlying causes of its spatial
distribution.
Diazotrophs are most conspicuous in warm, oligotrophic waters
from c. 30°S to 30°N, although there appears to be substantial
variation between regions (Luo et al. 2012; Fig. 3). Observed N2fixation rates are higher in the North than the South Atlantic and
Pacific basins, and diazotrophs appear to be common in the Baltic
and Mediterranean Seas. Different diazotrophs have distinct spatial
and temporal distributions (Church et al. 2008), but in the following
discussion we focus on the larger scale pattern of integrated diazotroph biomass and N2-fixation rates (Fig. 3).
Understanding what drives the large-scale biogeographical patterns of diazotrophs is challenging due to the fact that temperature,
light and nutrients co-vary across latitude. Trichodesmium possess a
high optimal temperature, a high light requirement and low susceptibility to photoinhibition (Capone et al. 1997), which may constrain
their distribution to low latitudes. It has also been proposed that
diazotrophs such as Trichodesmium and Crocosphaera are restricted to
warm waters due to temperature-dependence of respiration and flux
of O2, which inhibits nitrogenase (Staal et al. 2003).
Review and Synthesis
Plankton trait biogeography 527
(a)
(b) 80
60
Latitude
40
20
0
−20
−40
−60
−80
4
−4
−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
4
Model Diazotroph Biomass (log µgC m–3)
6
MAREDAT
Depth−Integrated
Biomass
(log µgC m–2 )
Figure 3 (a) Annual mean biomass of model diazotrophs in top 50 m (data from Dutkiewicz et al. 2012). Observed cyanobacterial diazotroph abundances have been
estimated from qPCR assays targeting nifH genes and compiled by Luo et al. (2012); black triangles and white circles indicate observations of zero and greater than zero
diazotroph biomass respectively. (b) Latitudinal variation in observed depth-integrated diazotroph biomass. Depth-integrated diazotroph observations from Luo et al.
(2012) were averaged onto a 3° 9 3° grid and zonally averaged (open circles), and then smoothed with a 5-point running mean (solid line). Model data courtesy of
Stephanie Dutkiewicz.
Recent modelling studies suggest that the availability of N and
Fe, in addition to temperature and light, regulate the global-scale
distribution of diazotrophs, with the availability of phosphorus (P)
playing an additional, regional regulatory role (Monteiro et al. 2010;
Dutkiewicz et al. 2012). At higher latitudes with greater availability
of bioavailable N, models show that diazotrophs are outcompeted
by non-diazotrophs because of their relatively slow maximum specific growth rates, which may stem from the energetic cost of
breaking the N2 gas triple bond (Monteiro et al. 2010). At lower latitudes, diazotroph distribution appears to be constrained by the relative availability of N and Fe. Because of their relatively high
demand for Fe due to the Fe-rich nitrogenase enzyme complex, in
a global model diazotrophs were numerous in the subtropical North
Pacific, where Fe was relatively high but N was low, and rare in
zones where both N and Fe were low (Dutkiewicz et al. 2012).
These studies are supported by observations that show an inverse
correlation between the abundance of nitrogenase reductase genes
and nitrate concentrations in the Pacific (Church et al. 2008), but a
positive correlation with Fe concentrations along the Atlantic
Meridional Transect (AMT; Moore et al. 2009). An additional constraint on the distribution of diazotrophs is the bioavailability of P.
For example, in low N and high dissolved Fe conditions in the
tropical and subtropical North Atlantic, N2-fixation has been found
to also closely track concentrations of bioavailable P (Sanudo-Wilhelmy et al. 2001). Diazotrophs have a high P requirement relative
to non-diazotrophs (Quigg et al. 2011), and are thus sensitive to P
limitation of growth.
These mechanisms indicate several potentially conflicting paths by
which diazotroph distributions may shift under global environmental change. Rising temperatures and CO2 concentrations in the
ocean surface may facilitate increased N2-fixation and/or growth
rate of N2-fixers and expand their geographical distribution
(Hutchins et al. 2007; Stal 2009). Changes in the hydrological cycle
in a warmer climate may reduce the atmospheric deposition of Fe
into the ocean and limit the range and abundance of diazotrophs
(Berman-Frank et al. 2001). Although rising temperatures are
expected to increase the extent of oligotrophy (Sarmiento et al.
2004), we have a poor understanding of how the supply ratio of N,
P, and Fe will change. If changes in nutrient availability lead to
increased P limitation, this may restrict N2-fixers due to their high
P requirements. Alternatively, if N limitation is increased, N2-fixers
may have a competitive advantage over non-N2-fixers and increase
their dominance and range. Unravelling which, if any, of these possibilities may play out will require incorporation of diazotrophs with
realistic physiology and nutrient requirements into trait-based plankton community models (e.g., Monteiro et al. 2010; Dutkiewicz et al.
2012) that are run with environmental forcing consistent with
expected future changes. Although we have focussed on diazotrophs in particular, phytoplankton exhibit a range of N : P requirements, and this trait is likely to be crucial for interpreting how
plankton communities respond to, and feed back on, global change
(Finkel et al. 2010; Weber & Deutsch 2012).
Mixotrophy
Mixotrophs are organisms that combine both autotrophic and heterotrophic nutrition, and this blending may be a much more common strategy than previously imagined (Hansen 2011). This trait is
particularly common among the dinoflagellates, but is found in a
wide range of microbes (Hansen 2011). Mixotrophs have been
shown to increase the efficiency of nutrient drawdown in aquatic
systems (Tittel et al. 2003), and can account for much of the bacterial grazing in pelagic and coastal zones (Havskum & Riemann
1996; Zubkov & Tarran 2008). Despite their importance, there are
no quantitative estimates of the global importance of mixotrophy
with regard to primary production and nutrient cycling. Thus,
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
528 A. D. Barton et al.
improved understanding of mixotroph ecology and the resulting
implications for marine food webs and biogeochemical cycles is an
important goal.
Mixotrophy has the advantage of broadening the pool of available
resources (Tittel et al. 2003), but there are also certain physiological
‘trade-offs’ associated with maintaining two trophic machineries. In
comparison with obligate photoautotrophs such as diatoms, the dinoflagellates, many of whom are mixotrophic, are typically associated with slow maximum specific growth rates and a low affinity
for inorganic nutrients (Edwards et al. 2012). In a similar fashion,
growth and grazing rates in some mixotrophs have been shown to
be slower than in similar, heterotrophic specialists (Jeong et al.
2010). Given these relatively uncompetitive traits, how is it that
mixotrophs are able to coexist with, or even outcompete, their
apparently superior competitors?
Competition between specialists and mixotrophic plankton can be
thought of in terms of the principle of opportunity costs (Stephens
& Krebs 1987). Strictly autotrophic and heterotrophic plankton are
able to exploit certain resources more efficiently through specialisation, but to do so they reduce their resource opportunities. Mixotrophs increase their resource opportunities by consuming both
inorganic and organic resources, but in doing so they are less efficient. In oligotrophic environments, where resources are relatively
scarce, there is less advantage in specialisation. Mixotrophs are able
to thrive in these regions (Havskum & Riemann 1996; Zubkov &
Tarran 2008), because they are able to take advantage of both inorganic and organic resource encounters (Ward et al. 2011). Specialists,
in contrast, gain an advantage in eutrophic conditions, where
resources (either dissolved inorganic nutrients or prey) are so abundant that they can afford to be selective. Thus, it is conceivable that
this oligotrophic niche for mixotrophs may expand poleward as
stratification increases and nutrient delivery to the surface decreases
under climate warming scenarios (Sarmiento et al. 2004).
Mixotrophic generalism can also be thought of as a ‘bet-hedging’
strategy, through which the mixotrophs experience less risk because
they do not rely on just one resource (Stoecker 1998). In a changing
environment, mixotrophs are able to bridge the gap between bloom
periods, where inorganic resources are abundant, and post-bloom
periods, where inorganic resources are scarce, prey are abundant,
and production is driven by grazing and recycling of organic matter.
This bet-hedging mechanism yields a succession of trophic strategies, from autotrophs, through mixotrophs, to heterotrophs, as has
been observed in the North Atlantic Bloom Experiment (Sieracki
et al. 1993) and Continuous Plankton Recorder data (Barton et al.
2013).
We currently have limited understanding of mixotroph biogeography, but there are at least three ways this uncertainty can be
decreased. First, field studies should quantify mixotrophic distribution, but also prey ingestion and photosynthetic rates as a function
of environmental conditions such as temperature, light, nutrients
and prey availability. Second, knowledge of the distribution of
mixotrophic taxa can be paired with laboratory and field-based estimates of the prevailing trophic strategy for each taxa to make predictions about the spatial and temporal distribution of mixotrophs
in the ocean (Barton et al. 2013). Third, trait-based plankton community models that allow for a range of trophic strategies (Ward
et al. 2011) should be implemented on a global scale and employed
to quantify the affects of mixotrophy on marine food webs and biogeochemical cycles. In each approach, it should be recognised that
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
Review and Synthesis
organisms may acquire essential nutrients independently through
different trophic pathways: photosynthesis, uptake of organic nutrients, assimilation of organic detritus, or grazing or predation on
other living organisms. The traditional definition of plankton as
either heterotrophs or autotrophs needs to be broadened to include
such trophic plasticity. Ultimately, mixotrophs may be considered
an important plankton group distinct from either phytoplankton or
zooplankton in terms of their functional traits, ecology and biogeochemical functions.
ZOOPLANKTON
A natural division among the zooplankton is between heterotrophic
microbes (e.g. ciliates, amoebae, some nanoflagellates and dinoflagellates) and metazoa, including copepods, jellyfish (cnidarians and ctenophores) and chaetognaths. Our discussion of trait biogeography
will focus on the metazoan plankton, both because of their ecological importance but also to draw a contrast with the microbial phytoplankton. Furthermore, the copepods will play a prominent role
in our discussion of the metazoan plankton. Copepods are ubiquitous and a strong contender for the most numerous metazoan class.
Body size and size-linked traits
As with the phytoplankton, size is the major structuring trait among
zooplankton. For example, body size influences swimming speeds,
lipid storage, prey and predator size, and almost all vital rates
(growth, fecundity, metabolism, feeding, etc.; Kiørboe 2008). However, size is not a simple trait in metazoa. Due to development, an
individual zooplankter will go through many sizes during its life,
and traits and processes that are linked with size will thus change as
it develops.
Zooplankton communities are strongly size-structured, mainly
because size determines a zooplankter’s predators and prey. Zooplankton feed on prey that are generally smaller than themselves,
and the average predator : prey size ratio in plankton is about 10
on a linear scale (Hansen et al. 1994). This typically leads to a relationship between the size of the herbivorous zooplankton and the
size of the primary producers. For example, the oligotrophic subtropical gyres are dominated by small phytoplankton (as discussed
in the previous section on phytoplankton) that are grazed by small
herbivorous zooplankton, such as flagellates and ciliates (Calbet &
Landry 2004). These, in turn, are eaten by larger zooplankton. Conversely, large herbivorous zooplankton (mainly copepods of the Calanus genus) dominate the strongly seasonal subpolar and arctic
oceans that are characterised by spring blooms of large diatoms. In
accordance with this general pattern, the average zooplankton body
size along the AMT decreases in the oligotrophic seas and increases
in more nutrient-rich regions (San Martin et al. 2006). Thus, it is
reasonable to predict that a climate-mediated shift towards more oligotrophic seas with smaller phytoplankton and a more prominent
microbial loop would favour smaller omnivorous zooplankton.
An important deviation from the general relationships between
zooplankton functional traits, prey preference and body size is the
presence of gelatinous plankton characterised by a high water content, or ‘jelly factor’. In addition to the cnidarians and ctenophores,
gelatinous forms include the pelagic tunicates, and are also found
among pteropods, protists and pelagic polychaetes. The hallmark of
gelatinous zooplankton is their inflated size relative to their mass.
Review and Synthesis
Ontogeny
Ontogeny describes the structural development of an organism
through its life. For zooplankton, there are a wide variety of ontogenetic patterns, but a general model begins with the egg, progresses through a series of developmental stages, and terminates
with the reproducing adult.
A first order trait associated with ontogeny is development time,
that is, the time to develop from an egg to a reproducing adult.
This trait plays a critical role in the life history as it has direct
importance to their rate of population growth. The timing of maturity can be particularly important to semelparous species (that is,
those species that reproduce once in a lifetime) or species that rely
on a seasonal bloom, such as Calanus finmarchicus in the North
Atlantic. The timing of key morphological changes, such as the
development of swimming or feeding appendages, can be similarly
important. Through its influence on grazing rates, zooplankton
development time also plays a key role in structuring phytoplankton
communities, and consequently biogeochemical cycles, as discussed
previously (Section Phytoplankton).
A key ontogenetic trade-off impacting zooplankton fitness exists
between body size, generation time and fecundity. Zooplankton tend
to either mature early at a small size with consequently low egg production, or mature later at a larger size with higher egg production
(Fig. 4; Kiørboe & Hirst 2008). Thus, in comparison to a late maturation strategy, early maturation yields a short generation time and a
greater chance of reaching adulthood, but fewer eggs. A large size
may also be advantageous depending on the predator regime.
Development rate depends primarily on temperature for a wide
range of taxonomic groups, particularly in non-food-limited conditions (Mauchline 1998). The sensitivity to temperature of development time is represented by ED, or the activation energy required
for the metabolic processes involved in development (Maps et al.
2011; Table 1). Assembling temperature sensitivity trait data, as we
have done here, may help determine future zooplankton community
changes. For example, taxa with the highest temperature sensitivity
2
10
Fecundity (eggs female–1 day–1)
This may allow partial escape from predators and a large prey capture area, with consequently large clearance rates relative to other
zooplankton of a similar mass (Acu~
na et al. 2011). The inflated size
also implies a prey : predator size ratio that deviates dramatically
from the typical 10 : 1. For example, salps feed primarily on bacteria and small phytoplankton (Sutherland et al. 2010), which is
thought to explain their prevalence in oligotrophic environments
characterised by small primary producers.
The ‘jelly factor’ trait encompasses a specific trade-off between
large volume relative to mass and vulnerability to predation and
mechanical disturbance. The latter characteristic means that gelatinous species are fragile and not well preserved in standard zooplankton nets, making it difficult to characterise their distribution.
Overharvesting of small pelagic fish, which are the principal predators of zooplankton, has been followed by increases in zooplanktivorous jellies in several locations (Lynam et al. 2006). Jellyfish are
also associated with conditions that favour non-silicified phytoplankton over diatoms, including high N : Si ratios and increased
stratification (Richardson et al. 2009). Coupling overfishing with the
impacts of climate change have led some to suggest that we may be
heading towards ‘a more gelatinous future’ (Richardson et al. 2009),
although this prediction is a subject of debate (Condon et al. 2012).
Plankton trait biogeography 529
1
10
Development time (days)
12
0
10
0
10
1
10
16
20
2
10
24
3
10
28
4
10
Adult mass (µgC ind–1)
Figure 4 Zooplankton fecundity as a function of adult body mass, with colours
showing development time (data are from Kiørboe & Hirst 2008). The dashed
black line shows the line of best fit.
may experience the greatest changes in development rates under climate warming scenarios, which will also have consequences for
phytoplankton communities.
Growth and development rates are not strongly coupled and the
disproportionate influence of temperature on development produces a strong negative relation between temperature and adult
body size, both within and between species (Forster et al. 2011).
For example, longer development times are generally associated
with polar and subpolar systems, as typified by genera such as Calanus, Eucalanus, Neocalanus and Rhincalanus, while tropical and subtropical copepod species have shorter development times (Fig. 5).
The genus Calanus provides an example of the strong temperaturesize pattern. The largest members of this genus are polar, with
C. hyperboreus (7 mm total length) occurring in the Arctic and
C. propinquus (5 mm) occurring in the Southern Ocean. As one
moves towards equator, the characteristic size of the local species
decreases. In the North Atlantic, C. hyperboreus gives way to C. glaciallis (4 mm), then C. finmarchicus (3 mm), which dominates the
subpolar gyre and coastal seas. In the eastern North Atlantic,
C. finmarchicus is replaced by C. helgolandicus (2 mm) in warmer
waters, and the distribution of this species is expanding poleward
due to warming (Beaugrand 2009). However, the overall association between copepod size and temperature is not as clear as for
this particular genus. Large species occur in warm waters (for
example, Euchaeta spp. and Pleuromamma spp. are in the same size
range as C. finmarchicus), while Oithona spp. (0.3 mm) are found
nearly everywhere (Gallienne & Robins 2001).
The development of overwintering strategies in many zooplankton represents second order ontogenetic traits with important biogeographical implications. For example, many copepod species have
dormant stages with reduced metabolic rates and slowed development, and these stages allow them to survive periods of unfavourable conditions such as reduced food or high mortality (Johnson
et al. 2008). Such copepods either produce resting eggs that may
survive for decades in the sediment (Mauchline 1998), or they
diapause as juveniles that persist on stored wax ester lipids. Other
taxonomic groups, such as ctenophores, appear to accumulate lipids
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
530 A. D. Barton et al.
Review and Synthesis
Table 1 Functional traits and biogeographies for some common marine and estuarine copepods
Genus
Species
ED (eV)
(Record et al. 2012 Table 1)
Diapause
(Mauchline 1998 Tables 40, 60)
Acartia
Acartia
Acartia
Calanus
Calanus
Calanus
Calanus
Calanus
Calanus
Calanus
Centropages
Centropages
Centropages
Centropages
Eurytemora
Metridia
Metridia
Neocalanus
Oithona
Paronychocamptus
Parvocalanus
Pseudodiaptomus
Pseudocalanus
Pseudocalanus
Pseudocalanus
Sinocalanus
Tachidius
Temora
Tortanus
clausi
grani†
steueri
finmarchicus
glacialis
helgolandicus
hyperboreus
marshallae
pacificus
sinicus
abdominalis
furcatus
hamatus
typicus
hirundoides
longa
pacifica
cristatus‡
colcarva§
nanus
crassirostris§
hessei§
minutus
newmani
elongatus
tenellus§
discipes
longicornis
discaudatus
0.64
0.82
0.8
0.75
0.74
0.7
0.77
0.85
0.74
0.72
0.8
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.64
0.7
0.82
0.63
0.65
0.77
0.44
0.7
0.65
0.67
0.83
0.61
0.87
0.98
E, N?
E
N?
C5 (C4?)
C3, C4, C5
C5?
C5
C5
C5
NR
E
E
E
E
NR
NR
C4, C5
C3, C4, C5
NR
NR
NR
NR
C4, C5
NR
NR
E
NR
E
E
Generations (year 1)
(Mauchline 1998 Table 58)
2.0–7
1.0–3
0.33–3
0.2
0.25–0.5
1.0–4
1.0–3
1.0–3
6
5.0–8
4.0–7
1.0–2
1.0–4
1
Feeding mode*
Biogeography
A/F
A/F
A/F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
C/A
C/A
C/A
C/A
C
C
C
SP/CS
SP/CS
SP/ST/CS
SP
P/SP
ST
P
P/SP
SP/ST
SP/ST
P/SP
ST/T
SP/ST/T
SP/ST/T
SP
P/SP/ST
P/SP
P/SP
ST/T
SP
ST/T
ST
C
P/SP
SP/ST
ST/T
SP
SP/ST
SP
A
F
1.0–2
3.0–5
F
F
F
2.0–6
F
C
ED is the activation energy of ontogenetic rate (Maps et al. 2011). Diapause stage: E = egg; N = naupliar diapause; Ci = diapause in the ith copepodid stage; NR = none
reported. Feeding mode: A = ambush; F = feeding current (hovering); C = cruising. Biogeography: P = polar; SP = subpolar; ST = subtropical; T = tropical; CS = continental shelf; C = cosmopolitan.
*The separation between ‘feeding current’ (hovering) and ‘cruising’ feeding modes is gradual. A neutrally buoyant zooplankter that beats its feeding appendages will cruise
through the water, while a negatively buoyant individual that beats the appendages in the same way will produce a feeding current. Most species are intermediate in their
feeding mode but may be more towards one end of the continuum. Some species may switch between ambush feeding and feeding-current feeding or cruise feeding.
†Guerrero et al. (1994).
‡Saito & Tsuda (2000).
§Peterson (2001).
(a)
(b) 80
60
Latitude
40
20
0
−20
−40
−60
−80
0
1
2
3
Generation length (years)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Mean generation length (years)
Figure 5 (a) Estimated biogeographical patterns of characteristic generation length and diapause strategy for calanoid copepods. Mean generation length was computed
from Mauchline (1998; Table 58) by grouping species into six regions (Antarctic, subantarctic, warm-temperate/upwelling, warm oceans, subarctic and Arctic) and
averaging the generation length within each region. Dotted areas indicate the presence of species with late-copepodid diapause strategies, estimated from Mauchline (1998;
Table 60) and Lee et al. (2006). (b) Generation length is also plotted as a function of latitude.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
Review and Synthesis
for overwintering as well (Lundberg et al. 2006). Diapausing species
are generally large and occur in polar, subpolar, and upwelling environments (Fig. 5), and because of the immense lipid resource they
provide, particularly in polar and subpolar environments, are critical
to the highly productive fishery ecosystems that occur in these
regions (Lee et al. 2006).
Feeding behaviours
Several functional traits characterise zooplankton feeding: the way
in which they collect prey, the rates at which they feed and the
extent to which they select between different prey. Trade-offs associated with food availability and the presence of zooplankton predators determine the spatiotemporal distribution of these feeding traits
along environmental gradients, which we describe below.
Zooplankton are known to feed in three ways: some are ambush
feeders that sit motionless in the water and wait for prey to pass
within their capture sphere; others generate a feeding current that is
passed through a filter or from which they capture entrained prey; or
they may cruise through the water and capture encountered prey
(Kiørboe 2011). This categorisation transcends taxonomy and life
forms. For example, ambush feeders include some protozoans (e.g.
helioflagellates, radiolarians), some pteropods and jellyfish, and some
copepods. Conversely, different feeding behaviours may occur within
the same taxonomic group (Table 1). Certain zooplankton may also
employ different feeding behaviours in response to changing environmental conditions and prey abundance (Mariani et al. 2013; Table 1).
Ambush feeding is less efficient in terms of clearance rates than
the more active feeding strategies because prey encounter rates
depend on prey swimming speeds that are typically less than zooplankton cruising and feeding current velocities, and they are limited
to feeding on motile prey. This lower volumetric search rate, however, comes with a lower metabolic expenditure and predation risk
(Kiørboe et al. 2010). Such trade-offs have been used to predict the
distribution of feeding behaviours along gradients of food availability, predator abundance and predator type, as well as vertical distributions of feeding behaviours (Visser 2007; Kiørboe 2011). Because
of the high metabolic cost and predation risk of active relative to
ambush feeding, less active feeding behaviours should prevail in
oligotrophic environments or in environments with high predation
risk, while zooplankton can afford a more active feeding strategy in
less risky and more food rich environments.
These predictions remain to be tested against field observations,
and a first step may be to categorise zooplankton species to feeding
type (Table 1). However, it is difficult to translate the predictions to
biogeographies in simple ways because the governing factors (predation risk, prey abundance and prey motility) may co-vary. For example, low predator concentrations that would favour an active
feeding behaviour are characteristic of oligotrophic environments
that, on the other hand, would favour an ambush strategy. Therefore, biogeographies of feeding types may not be distinct on ocean
wide scales, but variation in the occurrence of feeding behaviours
may be important on seasonal scales, where it may partly govern
the seasonal succession of the phytoplankton (Mariani et al. 2013).
Zooplankton feeding rates are typically described by the functional response in ingestion rate to prey density and are characterised mainly by two traits, the maximum clearance rate and the
maximum ingestion rate (Hansen et al. 1997). Both traits are tied to
body size. The maximum clearance rate of zooplankton varies in
Plankton trait biogeography 531
proportion to body mass when compared over the entire size and
taxonomic range of zooplankton, but within groups a different size
scaling may apply, and there is a substantial variation between species (Hansen et al. 1997; Kiørboe 2011). One may predict that the
maximum specific clearance rate will be high for species living in
oligotrophic environments because of the need to search larger volumes of water to find sufficient prey. Conversely, in upwelling
zones and subpolar regions characterised by diatom blooms and
high prey density, the need for fast food processing (short gut
throughput times), and hence high maximum ingestion rate, may be
more pronounced. Copepods feeding on diatoms indeed have significantly higher faecal production rates and shorter gut passage
times than when feeding on flagellates, with significant implications
for the vertical flux of phytoplankton carbon packed in rapidly sinking faecal pellets in these regions (Besiktepe & Dam 2002).
Prey size selectivity in zooplankton is mainly passive in that it is
governed by encounter rates and capture probabilities that, in turn,
are functions of the feeding behaviours and morphology (Kiørboe
2008). Prey selection may, however, also be based on other characteristics of the prey, mainly the nutritional value or chemical composition, as has been demonstrated for copepods (Cowles et al.
1988). Prey detection and selection is, however, only feasible for
prey cells that are large enough to produce a measurable signal, and
the size threshold appears to be c. 10 and 50 lm for chemical and
hydromechanical signals respectively (Legier-Visser et al. 1986). Zooplankton feeding on small prey cells, therefore, must collect food
by an automatic process, such as filtering the water (e.g. tunicates)
or by direct interception or diffusional deposition (e.g. most protozoans), whereas consumers of larger prey may use more active feeding processes, such as selecting prey cells that arrive in a feeding
current or are encountered as the zooplankter cruise through the
water (e.g. many copepods). As small phytoplankton cells dominate
in oligotrophic oceans, one may predict that herbivorous zooplankton should largely feed using automatic processes here. Carnivorous
copepods, on the other hand, would mainly prey on heterotrophic
protozoans in these regions. In upwelling regions and seasonal,
higher latitudes, blooms of large phytoplankton cells are grazed
mainly by zooplankton with individual prey detection, such as copepods and dinoflagellates.
Although we may be able to make some predictions about the
spatial distribution of zooplankton feeding traits, there are, as yet,
few data available to test such predictions. One promising avenue
for progress is species-centred databases on biogeography. If one
can assign traits to individual species (as we have done for Table 1),
it is possible to translate species to trait biogeographies, as exemplified by Fig. 5.
TRAIT-BASED PLANKTON ECOLOGY IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS
We have outlined a strategy for how plankton functional traits can
be used to understand plankton biogeography and community structure, but also to make informed predictions about how climate
change may alter marine plankton communities. Despite the significant developments discussed here, uncertainties remain. Consider,
for example, that we have only a preliminary picture of where and
when mixotrophic phytoplankton prosper in the ocean, and know
little of how zooplankton feeding strategies vary. In general, the
challenge of understanding and predicting how marine ecosystems
may respond to future climate change magnifies these uncertainties.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
532 A. D. Barton et al.
However, we have highlighted three promising and complementary approaches to minimizing these uncertainties. The first approach
is to directly measure plankton functional traits along environmental
gradients in the field; for example, field and satellite studies mapping
plankton cell and body size (Cerme~
no et al. 2006; Uitz et al. 2006),
phytoplankton expression of the nifH gene (Luo et al. 2012), and
phytoplankton bacterivory (Zubkov & Tarran 2008). Some plankton
functional traits, particularly morphological traits such as size, are
readily observable, while others, such as maximum growth and nutrient uptake rates for phytoplankton and zooplankton feeding behaviour, are difficult to quantify in this manner. A second, but less
direct, approach is to measure an organismal trait in a more controlled setting, and then map the trait back onto environmental gradients using known biogeographical distributions. Using this ‘traitto-map’ strategy, Barton et al. (2013) described the spatial variations
in seasonal succession of North Atlantic diatoms of varying size and
dinoflagellates with a range of trophic strategies. We have also
applied this approach to generate the trait distributions in Fig. 5. A
third approach is to develop plankton community models that represent key plankton traits and trade-offs among traits in spatially explicit environmental conditions. These models can be used to formalise
and test our understanding of regulatory mechanisms, identify relevant traits, predict current and future plankton community structure,
and can be compared with field and laboratory observations. Understanding of zooplankton feeding behaviours (Mariani et al. 2013),
plankton size structure (Armstrong 1994; Ward et al. 2012) and the
distribution of N2-fixation (Monteiro et al. 2010; Dutkiewicz et al.
2012) have benefitted from this approach.
Each approach will benefit from improved resolution of the distribution of species or functional groups and their traits. Numerous
broad-scale observational and data aggregating efforts are underway
to characterise the distribution of plankton species, size classes or
taxonomic groups. Notable examples include the Continuous Plankton Recorder survey (Richardson et al. 2006), reanalyses of satellite
ocean colour data (Uitz et al. 2006), plankton community model
intercomparison data sets (O’Brian et al. 2012) and the Ocean
Biogeographic Information System (OBIS 2012). However, similar
efforts focussing on the distribution of plankton functional traits are
relatively few. This is due undoubtedly to the difficulty of obtaining
physiological and morphological measurements at sea and in the lab.
Yet, another limitation is that there currently is no central clearinghouse for data describing how plankton functional traits vary within
and across species. Thus, we advocate here for the creation of a global database of plankton traits across all species and locations.
Well-developed community database efforts are underway for the
study of terrestrial plants and their functional traits, and may provide
a successful model. The TRY trait database (Kattge et al. 2011), for
example, has some three million trait entries for 69 000 of the
300 000 known terrestrial plant species in a vast range of habitats. By
bringing together a range of existing regional or more trait-specific,
specialty databases, the TRY database seeks to collect trait data for a
broad range of species on a global scale and provide standardised data
and metadata through a single data portal. In so doing, the database is
poised to be a massive boost in studying the community ecology, evolutionary biology and biogeography of terrestrial plants.
A future plankton database is likely to have many similarities to
TRY, but also aspects that reflect differences between terrestrial and
marine habitats. Consider, for example, that plankton are generally
short-lived, embedded within turbulent fluid flows, and often
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
Review and Synthesis
motile. Therefore, an essential component of the plankton database
– perhaps even more so than for existing terrestrial databases –
must be the collection of concomitant environmental and biotic
data, including temperature, salinity, photosynthetically active radiation, pH, dissolved inorganic nutrients, and predator and prey abundances, among others. This is particularly true for parameters
affected by climate (Box 1). Many regional and trait-specific databases already exist (Kiørboe 2011; Edwards et al. 2012; Barton et al.
2013), and should be brought together seamlessly. As many plankton traits co-vary (for example, phytoplankton cell size and nutrient
uptake rates), it may be possible to ‘fill’ knowledge gaps for species
and/or traits without abundant data (Bruggeman 2011; Shan et al.
2012). In addition to defining the relative fitness of each organism,
the functional traits in such a database should also be those that
can inform and validate trait-based plankton community models.
Although we have not discussed adaptation, or fast micro-evolutionary changes in traits, the small size of phytoplankton and their
large populations suggest that adaptation may play a role in how
plankton respond to climate change (Lohbeck et al. 2012), though
this possibility has not yet been fully assessed. The database will
allow for assessment of intraspecific variability in traits in the current ocean, but also serve as an important baseline for evaluating
changes in traits over time.
We hope that this review of plankton trait biogeography has
served two central purposes. First, understanding of the mechanisms underpinning marine plankton biogeography, the community’s role in biogeochemical cycles, and how communities may
respond to future climates can be improved by adoption of the
trait-based approaches outlined here. Second, the need for enhanced
collection, standardisation and dissemination of plankton trait data
is growing, and we hope that this collaboration will galvanise broad
support for the necessary efforts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ADB and ZVF were supported by the NSERC Discovery and CRC
programmes; AJP and NRR were supported by NSF’s Biological
Oceanography programme (OCE-0962074); EL and KFE acknowledge NSF funding (DEB-0845932, DEB-0845825, OCE-0928819,
and DEB-1136710); TK was supported by the Danish Council for
Independent Research; BAW is supported by the European Community 7th Framework Programme. Thank you also to Stephanie
Dutkiewicz for sharing model diazotroph biomass data.
AUTHORSHIP
ADB, AJP and EL conceived and coordinated the review, and all
authors contributed substantially to writing the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Acu~
na, J.L., Lopez-Urrutia, A. & Colin, S. (2011). Faking giants: the evolution of
high prey clearance rates in jellyfishes. Science, 333, 1627–1629.
Aksnes, D.L. & Egge, J.K. (1991). A theoretical model for nutrient uptake in
phytolankton. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 70, 65–72.
Armstrong, R.A. (1994). Grazing limitation and nutrient limitation in marine
ecosystems – steady-state solutions of an ecosystem model with multiple
food-chains. Limnol. Oceanogr., 39, 597–608.
Atkinson, D., Ciotti, B.J. & Montagnes, D.J. (2003). Protists decrease in size
linearly with temperature: ca. 2.5% degrees C-1. Proc. Biol. Sci., 270, 2605–2611.
Review and Synthesis
Barton, A.D., Dutkiewicz, S., Flierl, G., Bragg, J. & Follows, M.J. (2010).
Patterns of diversity in marine phytoplankton. Science, 327, 1509–1511.
Barton, A.D., Finkel, Z.V., Ward, B.A., Johns, D.G. & Follows, M.J. (2013). On
the roles of cell size and trophic strategy in North Atlantic diatom and
dinoflagellate communities. Limnol. Oceanogr., 58, 254–266.
Beaugrand, G. (2009). Decadal changes in climate and ecosystems in the North
Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. Deep Sea Res. II, 56, 656–673.
Berman-Frank, I., Cullen, J.T., Y., S., Sherrell, R.M. & Falkowski, P.G. (2001).
Iron availability, cellular iron quotas, and nitrogen fixation in Trichodesmium.
Limnol. Oceanogr., 46, 1249–1260.
Besiktepe, S. & Dam, H.G. (2002). Coupling of ingestion and defecation as a
function of diet in the calanoid copepod Acartia tonsa. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.,
229, 151–164.
Bopp, L., Aumont, O., Cadule, P., Alvain, S. & Gehlen, M. (2005). Response of
diatoms distribution to global warming and potential implications: a global
model study. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, DOI: 10.1029/2005GL023653.
Bruggeman, J. (2011). A phylogenetic approach to the estimation of
phytoplankton traits. J. Phycol., 47, 52–65.
Calbet, A. & Landry, M.R. (2004). Phytoplankton growth, microzooplankton
grazing, and carbon cycling in marine systems. Limnol. Oceanogr., 49, 51–57.
Caldeira, K. & Wickett, M.E. (2005). Ocean model predictions of chemistry
changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean.
J. Geophys. Res., 110, CO9S04, DOI:10.1029/2004jc002671.
Capone, D.G., Zehr, J.P., Paerl, H.W., Bergman, B. & Carpenter, E.J. (1997).
Trichodesmium, a globally significant marine Cyanobacterium. Science, 276, 1221–
1229.
Cerme~
no, P., Mara~
non, E., Harbour, D. & Harris, R.P. (2006). Invariant scaling
of phytoplankton abundance and cell size in contrasting marine environments.
Ecol. Lett., 9, 1210–1215.
Church, M.J., Bjorkman, K.M., Karl, D.M., Saito, M.A. & Zehr, J.P. (2008).
Regional distributions of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the Pacific Ocean. Limnol.
Oceanogr., 53, 63–77.
Condon, R.H., Graham, W.M., Duarte, C.M., Pitt, K.A., Lucas, C.H., Haddock,
S.H.D. et al. (2012). Questioning the rise of gelatinous zooplankton in the
World’s Oceans. Bioscience, 62, 160–169.
Cowles, T.J., Olson, R.J. & Chisholm, S.W. (1988). Food selection by copepods –
discrimination on the basis of food quality. Mar. Biol., 100, 41–49.
Curry, R., Dickson, B. & Yashayaev, I. (2003). A change in the freshwater balance
of the Atlantic Ocean over the past four decades. Nature, 426, 826–829.
Cushing, D.H. (1989). A difference in structure between ecosystems in strongly
stratified waters and in those that are weakly stratified. J. Plankton Res., 11,
1–13.
Doney, S.C., Ruckelshaus, M., Emmett Duffy, J., Barry, J.P., Chan, F., English,
C.A. et al. (2012). Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Ann. Rev.
Mar. Sci., 4, 11–37.
Dutkiewicz, S., Follows, M.J. & Bragg, J.G. (2009). Modeling the coupling of
ocean ecology and biogeochemistry. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 23, GB4017,
DOI:10.1029/2008GB003405,
Dutkiewicz, S., Ward, B.A., Monteiro, F. & Follows, M.J.(2012). Interconnection
of nitrogen fixers and iron in the Pacific Ocean: theory and numerical
simulations. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 26, DOI: 10.1029/2011gb004039.
Duysens, L.N.M. (1956). The flattening of the absorption spectrum of suspensions,
as compared to that of solutions. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 19, 1–12.
Edwards, K.F., Litchman, E. & Klausmeier, C.A. (2013). Functional traits
explain phytoplankton community structure and seasonal dynamics in a
marine ecosystem. Ecol. Lett., 16, 56–63.
Edwards, K.F., Thomas, M.K., Klausmeier, C.A. & Litchman, E. (2012).
Allometric scaling and taxonomic variation in nutrient utilization traits
and maximum growth rate of phytoplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr., 57, 554–566.
Falkowski, P.G., Barber, R.T. & Smetacek, V. (1998). Biogeochemical controls
and feedbacks on ocean primary production. Science, 281, 200–206.
Finkel, Z.V. (2007). Does phytoplankton cell size matter? The evolution of modern
marine food webs. In: The Evolution of Aquatic Photoautotrophs (eds Falkowski, P. &
Knoll, A.H.). Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 333–350.
Finkel, Z.V., Irwin, A.J. & Schofield, O. (2004). Resource limitation alters the 3/
4 size scaling of metabolic rates in phytoplankton. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 273,
269–279.
Plankton trait biogeography 533
Finkel, Z.V., Sebbo, J., Feist-Burkhardt, S., Irwin, A.J., Katz, M.E., Schofield, O.
M. et al. (2007). A universal driver of macroevolutionary change in the size of
marine phytoplankton over the Cenozoic. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 104,
20416–20420.
Finkel, Z.V., Beardall, J., Flynn, K.J., Quigg, A., Rees, T.A.V. & Raven, J.A.
(2010). Phytoplankton in a changing world: cell size and elemental
stoichiometry. J. Plankton Res., 32, 119–137.
Follows, M.J., Dutkiewicz, S., Grant, S. & Chisholm, S.W. (2007). Emergent
biogeography of microbial communities in a model ocean. Science, 315, 1843–
1846.
Forster, J., Hirst, A.G. & Atkinson, D. (2011). How do organisms change size
with changing temperature? The importance of reproductive method and
ontogenetic timing. Funct. Ecol., 25, 1024–1031.
Gallienne, C.P. & Robins, D.B. (2001). Is Oithona the most important copepod
in the world’s oceans? J. Plankton Res., 23, 1421–1432.
Guerrero, F., Blanco, J.M. & Rodriguez, V. (1994). Temperature-dependent
development in marine copepods: a compartive analysis of models. J. Plankton
Res., 16, 95–103.
Halm, H., Lam, P., Ferdelman, T.G., Lavik, G., Dittmar, T., LaRoche, J. et al.
(2012). Heterotrophic organisms dominate nitrogen fixation in the South
Pacific Gyre. ISME J., 6, 1238–1249.
Hansen, P.J. (2011). The role of photosynthesis and food uptake for the growth of
marine mixotrophic dinoflagellates. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 58, 203–214.
Hansen, B., Bjørnsen, P.K. & Hansen, P.J. (1994). The size ration between
planktonic predators and their prey. Limnol. Oceanogr., 39, 395–403.
Hansen, B., Bjørnsen, B.W. & Hansen, P.J. (1997). Zooplankton grazing and
growth: scaling within the 2–2000l body size range. Limnol. Oceanogr., 42, 687–
704.
Havskum, H. & Riemann, B. (1996). Ecological importance of bacterivorous,
pigmented flagellates (mixotrophs) in the Bay of Aarhus, Denmark. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser., 137, 251–263.
Hilligsøe, K.M., Richardson, K., Bendtsen, J., Sørensen, L.-L., Nielsen, T.G. &
Lyngsgaard, M.M. (2011). Linking phytoplankton community size composition
with temperature, plankton food web structure and sea–air CO2 flux. Deep Sea
Res. I, 58, 826–838.
Hutchins, D.A., Fu, F.X., Zhang, Y., Warner, M.E., Feng, Y., Portune, K. et al.
(2007). CO2 control of Trichodesmium N2 fixation, photosynthesis, growth rates,
and elemental ratios: implications for past, present, and future ocean
biogeochemistry. Limnol. Oceanogr., 52, 1293–1304.
Irigoien, X., Huisman, J. & Harris, C. (2004). Global biodiversity patterns of
marine phytoplankton and zooplankton. Nature, 429, 863–866.
Irwin, A.J. & Oliver, M.J. (2009). Are ocean deserts getting larger? Geophys. Res.
Lett., 36, DOI: 10.1029/2009gl039883.
Irwin, A.J., Nelles, A.M. & Finkel, Z.V. (2012). Phytoplankton niches estimated
from field data. Limnol. Oceanogr., 57, 787–797.
Jeong, H.J., Yoo, Y.D., Kim, J.S., Seong, K.A., Kang, N.S. & Kim, T.H. (2010).
Growth, feeding and ecological roles of the mixotrophic and heterotrophic
dinoflagellates in marine planktonic food webs. Ocean Sci. J., 45, 65–91.
Johnson, C.L., Leising, A.W., Runge, J.A., Head, E.J.H., Pepin, P., Plourde, S.
et al. (2008). Characteristics of Calanus finmarchicus dormancy patterns in the
Northwest Atlantic. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 65, 339–350.
Kattge, J., Diaz, S., Lavorel, S., Prentice, I.C., Leadley, P., Bonisch, G. et al. (2011).
TRY – a global database of plant traits. Glob. Change Biol., 17, 2905–2935.
Key, T., McCarthy, A., Campbell, D.A., Six, C., Roy, S. & Finkel, Z.V. (2010).
Cell size trade-offs govern light exploitation strategies in marine
phytoplankton. Environ. Microbiol., 12, 95–104.
Kiørboe, T. (2008). A Mechanistic Approach to Plankton Ecology. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Kiørboe, T. (2011). How zooplankton feed: mechanisms, traits and trade-offs.
Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc., 86, 311–339.
Kiørboe, T. & Hirst, A.G. (2008). Optimal development time in pelagic
copepods. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 367, 15–22.
Kiørboe, T., Jiang, H. & Colin, S.P. (2010). Danger of zooplankton feeding: the
fluid signal generated by ambush-feeding copepods. Proc. Biol. Sci., 277, 3229–
3237.
Lee, R.F., Hagen, W. & Kattner, G. (2006). Lipid storage in marine zooplankton.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 307, 273–306.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
534 A. D. Barton et al.
Legier-Visser, M.F., Mitchell, J.G., Okubo, A. & Fuhrman, J.A. (1986).
Mechanoreception in calanoid copepods: a mechanism for prey detection.
Mar. Biol., 90, 529–535.
LeQuere, C., Harrison, S.P., Prentice, I.C., Buitenhuis, E.T., Aumont, O., Bopp,
L. et al. (2005). Ecosystem dynamics based on plankton functional types for
global ocean biogeochemistry models. Glob. Chang. Biol., 11, 2016–2040.
Litchman, E. & Klausmeier, C.A. (2008). Trait-based community ecology of
phytoplankton. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 39, 615–639.
Lohbeck, K.T., Riebesell, U. & Reusch, T.B.H. (2012). Adaptive evolution of a
key phytoplankton species to ocean acidification. Nat. Geosci., 5, 346–351.
Lundberg, M., Hop, H., Eiane, K., Gulliksen, B. & Falk-Petersen, S. (2006).
Population structure and accumulation of lipids in the ctenophore Mertensia
ovum. Mar. Biol., 149, 1345–1353.
Luo, Y.W., Doney, S.C., Anderson, L.A., Benavides, M., Bode, A., Bonnet, S.
et al. (2012). Database of diazotrophs in global ocean: abundances, biomass
and nitrogen fixation rates. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., 5, 47–106.
Lynam, C.P., Gibbons, M.J., Axelsen, B.E., Sparks, C.A.J., Coetzee, J., Heywood,
B.G. et al. (2006). Jellyfish overtake fish in a heavily fished ecosystem. Curr.
Biol., 16, R492–R493.
Maps, F., Pershing, A.J. & Record, N.R. (2011). A generalized approach for
simulating growth and development in diverse marine copepod species. ICES
J. Mar. Sci., 69, 370–379.
Mariani, P., Andersen, K.H., Visser, A.W., Barton, A.D. & Kiørboe, T. (2013).
Control of plankton seasonal succession by adaptive grazing. Limnol. Oceanogr.,
58, 173–184.
Mauchline, J. (1998). The Biology of Calanoid Copepods. Academic Press, San Diego,
CA.
Moles, A.T., Wallis, I.R., Foley, W.J., Warton, D.I., Stegen, J.C., Bisigato, A.J.
et al. (2011). Putting plant resistance traits on the map: a test of the idea that
plants are better defended at lower latitudes. New Phytol., 191, 777–788.
Monteiro, F.M., Follows, M.J. & Dutkiewicz, S. (2010). Distribution of diverse
nitrogen fixers in the global ocean. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 24, DOI: 10.
1029/2009gb003731.
Moore, C.M., Mills, M.M., Achterberg, E.P., Geider, R.J., LaRoche, J. & Lucas,
M. (2009). Large-scale distribution of Atlantic nitrogen fixation controlled by
iron availability. Nat. Geosci., 2, 867–871.
O’Brien, C.J., Peloquin, J.A., Vogt, M., Heinle, M., Gruber, N., Ajani, P. et al.
(2012). Global marine plankton functional type biomass distributions:
coccolithophores. Earth Sys. Sci. Data Discuss., 5, 491–520.
OBIS (2012). Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO.
The Ocean Biogeographic Information System. URL http://www.iobis.org/
Pahlow, M., Riebesell, U. & Wolf-Gladrow, D.A. (1997). Impact of cell shape
and chain formation on nutrient acquisition by marine diatoms. Limnol.
Oceanogr., 42, 1660–1672.
Peterson, W.T. (2001). Patterns in stage duration and development among marine
and freshwater calanoid and cycloid copepods: a review of rules, physiological
constraints, and evolutionary significance. Hydrobiology, 453/454, 91–105.
Provan, J., Beatty, G.E., Keating, S.L., Maggs, C.A. & Savidge, G. (2009). High
dispersal potential has maintained long-term population stability in the North
Atlantic copepod Calanus finmarchicus. Proc. Biol. Sci., 276, 301–307.
Quigg, A., Irwin, A.J. & Finkel, Z.V. (2011). Evolutionary inheritance of
elemental stoichiometry in phytoplankton. Proc. Biol. Sci., 278, 526–534.
Record, N.R., Pershing, A.J. & Maps, F. (2012). First principles of copepod
development help explain global marine diversity patterns. Oecologia, 170, 289–
295.
Richardson, A.J., Walne, A.W., John, A.W.G., Jonas, T.D., Lindley, J.A., Sims,
D.W. et al. (2006). Using continuous plankton recorder data. Prog. Oceanogr.,
68, 27–74.
Richardson, A.J., Bakun, A., Hays, G.C. & Gibbons, M.J. (2009). The jellyfish
joyride: causes, consequences and management responses to a more gelatinous
future. Trends Ecol. Evol., 24, 312–322.
Rykaczewski, R.R. & Dunne, J.P. (2010). Enhanced nutrient supply to the
California Current Ecosystem with global warming and increased stratification
in an earth system model. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL045019.
Saito, H. & Tsuda, A. (2000). Egg production and early development of the
subarctic copepods Neocalanus cristatus, N. plumchrus and N. yemingeri. Deep Sea
Res. I, 47, 2141–2158.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
Review and Synthesis
San Martin, E., Harris, R.P. & Irigoien, X. (2006). Latitudinal variation in
plankton size spectra in the Atlantic Ocean. Deep Sea Res. II, 53, 1560–1572.
Sanudo-Wilhelmy, S.A., Kustka, A.B., Gobler, C.J., Hutchins, D.A., Yang, M.,
Lwiza, K. et al. (2001). Phosphorous limitation of nitrogen fixation by
Trichodesmium in the central Atlantic Ocean. Nature, 411, 66–69.
Sarmiento, J.L., Slater, R., Barber, R., Bopp, L., Doney, S.C., Hirst, A.C. et al.
(2004). Response of ocean ecosystems to climate warming. Global Biogeochem.
Cycles, 18, DOI: 10.1029/2003GB002134.
Schartau, M., Landry, M.R. & Armstrong, R.A. (2010). Density estimation of
plankton size spectra: a reanalysis of IronEx II data. J. Plankton Res., 32,
1167–1184.
Shan, H., Kattge, J., Reich, P.B., Banerjee, A., Schrodt, F. & Reichstein, M.
(2012). Gap filling in the plant kingdom–trait prediction using hierarchical
probabilistic matrix factorization. In: Proceedings of the 29th International
Conference for Machine Learning Edinburgh, UK.
Sieracki, M.E., Verity, P.G. & Stoecker, D.K. (1993). Plankton community
response to sequential silicate and nitrate depletion during the 1989 North
Atlantic spring bloom. Deep Sea Res. II, 40, 213–225.
Smetacek, V.S. (1985). Role of sinking in diatom life-history cycles: ecological,
evolutionary and geological significance. Mar. Biol., 84, 239–251.
Staal, M., Meysman, F.J.R. & Stal, L.J. (2003). Temperature excludes N2-fixing
heterocystous cyanobacteria in the tropical oceans. Nature, 425, 504–507.
Stal, L.J. (2009). Is the distribution of nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria in the oceans
related to temperature? Environ. Microbiol., 11, 1632–1645.
Stephens, D.W. & Krebs, J.R. (1987). Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Stoecker, D.K. (1998). Conceptual models of mixotrophy in planktonic protists
and some ecological and evolutionary implications. Eur. J. Protistol., 34, 281–
290.
Stomp, M., Huisman, J., de Jongh, F., Veraart, A., Gerla, D., Rijkeboert, M. et al.
(2004). Adaptive divergence in pigment composition promotes phytoplankton
diversity. Nature, 432, 104–107.
Sutherland, K.R., Madin, L.P. & Stocker, R. (2010). Filtration of submicrometer
particles by pelagic tunicates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 15129–15134.
Tittel, J., Bissinger, V., Zippel, B., Gaedke, U., Bell, E., Lorke, A. et al. (2003).
Mixotrophs combine resource use to outcompete specialists: implications for
aquatic food webs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 12776–12781.
Tyrrell, T. (1999). The relative influences of nitrogen and phosphorus on oceanic
primary production. Nature, 400, 525–531.
Uitz, J., Claustre, H., Morel, A. & Hooker, S.B. (2006). Vertical distribution of
phytoplankton communities in open ocean: an assessment based on surface
chlorophyll. J. Geophys. Res., 111, DOI: 10.1029/2005JC003207.
Violle, C., Navas, M.-L., Vile, D., Kazakou, E., Fortunel, C., Hummel, I. et al.
(2007). Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos, 116, 882–892.
Visser, A.W. (2007). Motility of zooplankton: fitness, foraging and predation.
J. Plankton Res., 29, 447–461.
Ward, B.A., Dutkiewicz, S., Barton, A.D. & Follows, M.J. (2011). Biophysical
aspects of resource acquisition and competition in algal mixotrophs. Am. Nat.,
178, 98–112.
Ward, B.A., Dutkiewicz, S., Jahn, O. & Follows, M.J. (2012). A size-structured
food-web model for the global ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr., 57, 1877–1891.
Weber, T. & Deutsch, C. (2012). Oceanic nitrogen reservoir regulated by
plankton diversity and ocean circulation. Nature, 489, 419–422.
Westoby, M. & Wright, I.J. (2006). Land-plant ecology on the basis of functional
traits. Trends Ecol. Evol., 21, 261–268.
Zehr, J.P. (2011). Nitrogen fixation by marine cyanobacteria. Trends Microbiol., 19,
162–173.
Zubkov, M.V. & Tarran, G.A. (2008). High bacterivory by the smallest
phytoplankton in the North Atlantic Ocean. Nature, 455, 224–226.
Editor, James Elser
Manuscript received 27 August 2012
First decision made 21 September 2012
Manuscript accepted 4 December 2012